The international Test match between England and Pakistan ended in Controversy over what issue (Who was the person central to the event) and what(under the rules) was awarded to England as a result? And what happened next? Choice of Several answers (no violence)
FYI This story headlined on Google News (Sports)in the UK,Pakistan.,India ,Australia and New Zealand This is an ongoing issue so there'll be plenty of links on this for quite a while ... The cricket forums will be buzzing on this topic Some of the answers are on the Main site www.cricinfo.com Ps Several players have been in similar issues over the years, But this one is the biggest yet.
Posts: 13325 | Location: 6 miles west of Wigan UK | Registered: 06-05-02
This is painful and from lebaneese war to this is just adding to depression.
Umpire Hair (bum) has accusd Pakistan cricket team for ball tampering. He changed the ball and gave a 5 run penality against them. This meant that the Pakistan cricket team is cheating, to which they protested and did not go out to play after the tea session. When they did go out, the same umpire held that the Pakistan had forfeited the match and awarded the match to England. The english and pakistan team were ready to play the last day, but the law (or the umpires vanity) came in between and held that the match cannot be restarted and england were awarded the match.
Now ICC (cricket governing body) has now to decide the issue. Pakistan cricket captain 'Inzimam' is in deep trouble accussed of tampering the ball and forfeiting the match (both of which he pleads innocent). No camera has caught him or any other player of tampering with the ball (the fact that goes in their favour). However the ICC isnt really going to go against the umpire (very unlikely). The issue isnt gonna be decided for weeks (if not months) and i dont have much hope for justice (for Pakistani players - if they are innocent).
A team, any team in any game, is bound by the umpire's decision then and there. It is not open to them to sulk and refuse to play on, which is what happened here. It was just a childish tantrum. It didn't work because the umpires, having given them a little time to change their minds, declared the game over and England the winners, by default.If the Pakistan team wished to protest that the umpires were wrong to rule that the ball had been tampered with then, as they and their managers well know, they can do so later e.g overnight. If the appeal succeeds then we assume the 5 run penalty will be removed. What the Pakistanis were doing was challenging, blackmailing, the umpires and the governing body. They thought that, faced with the loss of a whole day's TV coverage and the crowd receipts the authorities would allow the game to go on. Tough. Since then we have had the Pakistani team's manager threatening that his side might not play in the one-day internationals if the captain is punished for breaking the rules. OK. If that happens, it happens.
It was known beforehand that there was history between Hair and Pakistan Question Who said he was the man to officiate? Question 2 If he "thought" the ball was suspect and said so ...offered another ball would that have been acceptable? Soccer referees do it all the time .Nobody complains If Harold "Dickie" Bird had been the umpire he'd have done just that without all this aggravation(No Nonsense bloke)
Bik we are on your side on this,and Fred, I agree, they took a huff on it, but in the heat of the moment forgot to think of a logical way of getting the best deal out of the situation, accepting another ball and playing on, leaving the personal issues, and politics till the match was over. NOTE:Could a 1st class umpire have officiated if they(the Players) wished? Or is it a "Select few"?
Originally posted by juanruiz: Who is responsible for choosing an umpire from the same country as one of the teams?
The umpires are always from neutral countries. Mr Hair is an Australian official.The second umpire was from the West Indies.The umpires are all chosen from a list of suitable highly qualified umpires , the choice being made by some committee of the International Cricket Conference.
Originally posted by bedstor: Bik we are on your side on this,and Fred, I agree, they took a huff on it, but in the heat of the moment forgot to think of a logical way of getting the best deal out of the situation, accepting another ball and playing on, leaving the personal issues, and politics till the match was over.
Thanks Bedstor. Pakistani team would have been in a better position had they refused to continue to play 'on the field' rather then outside the field. But unlike anyone who says that Pakistan made a strategic move to put pressure 'if they did, they didnt put any thought behind it'. The cause of the problem again is 'ball tampering' charge. That conext will not be looked at and 'INZIMAM' will get screwed. Fred, i can tell you one thing for sure. Any cricket captain from any time would not have accepted the umpires decision (especially with no proof).
The hearing on the matter has been postponed after the one day series between Pakistan end England, so Pakistan cant threaten they wont play...... ( nice trick by ICC ).
But the biggest revelation has been a letter by the umpire Hair to ICC, that he is willing to resign if given a golden hand shake (one lumpsum compensation) of only US$ 500,000.
That was another big shock in the cricket world considering that ICC has been publically supporting the umpire. my guess is that from the inside ICC proberbly said a few words to the umpire of putting them in a very awkward position.
At one side ICC can rule against Pakistan (labeling them cheats) and facing reaction. At the other side they can rule favouring Pakistan , thereby undermining the umpires authoriy in the future matches. The decion unfortunately now will also be political (besides on merit).
Bik The underlying story here is this a form of ransom? There is some clever legal mind wound up in this affair. I Doubt if Hair is capable of coming up with something like this. The journalists will weed this person/s out into the open sooner or later.
Posts: 13325 | Location: 6 miles west of Wigan UK | Registered: 06-05-02
"This idea that umpires are always right is a load of old cobblers. What I want to know is: Who umpires the umpires? The players suffer from their mistakes, but no one ever seems to get rid of the umpires themselves. Being an umpire is a people job: that's why Dickie Bird was good at it. Yes, he was a loony, and he made mistakes - everyone does. But he knew how to deal with people, so they respected him." Straight talking from Geoff Boycott
"All these ICC officials sitting in their tax haven in Dubai and saying the umpire's always right - that's not going to help anyone. They've got to forget about their big egos for a moment and let us move on." And some more straight talking from Boycott this time aimed at the ICC
Despite positive developments for Pakistan, if ICC sticks with tradition, things will get messy for Pakistan cricket.
Hair asking for 500,00 as a compensation for not working for the next 5 years is soo absurd considering that he made a statement like this in April : In April, Hair had suggested in an interview that he might give up umpiring at the end of the World Cup. "I'm not so sure that after another 12 months I'll have the passion to keep enjoying it." His demand for $500,000, based on the rationale that he had four of his best years ahead of him, is contrary to this.
He may have his pay calculated in USD.He's reported here to be getting GBP £60,000 a year He has four years left on his contract so he'd be losing £240,000 if he quit now. $500,000 USD is £265,000 so his demand seems to fit the contract.
Whatever he said in the past about thinking to quit , he has stayed and maintains his contractual rights. As he's Australian, there was a thought that he was demanding 500,00 Australian dollars which would be only £200,000 or USD $375,000 which would be quite kindly
The heading scared me, but the story hasnt. Pakistan found innocent of ball tampering charges. Thats a relief, but found guilty of bringing the game to disrepute. Hey common dont take take things out of context. The ban on Inzimam is 4 matches, thats 4 one day matches (and not test matches). Details :
1.05pm An ICC spokesman has confirmed that Inzamam-ul-Haq has been cleared of charges of ball tampering but has been found guilty of the charge of bring the game into disrepute and has been banned for four ODIs, which is the lightest ban he could receive under the Level 3 rules.
"I have considered their evidence honestly and fairly given very carefully," the spokesman said, reading out the findings of Ranjan Madugalle, the senior ICC referee. "My duty is to call and give my own judgment. On the second charge - bringing the game into disrepute by refusing to play - I find Mr Ul-Haq guilty in that on two occasions he led a protest against the umpires by failing to come on to the field of play at the relevant time. I take the view, subject of course to any further submissions Mr Gay [Inzamam's lawyer] may wish to make, this is a Level 3 charge - a ban of two or four Test matches and/or between four and eight one-day international matches.
"As to the appropriate penalty for the offence of bringing the game into disrepute, I am satisfied that this is a Level 3 matter. Mr Ul-Haq has been found guilty of deliberately refusing to come onto this pitch on two occasions, as a protest against the umpires, so interrupting play. I take into account m uls expression of regret and apology and I take into account all the other surrounding and mitigating circumstances. I decide that Mr Ul-Haq should be banned for four one-day matches with immediate effect. M ul you have the right of appeal on given written notice to the ICC legal counsel within 24 hours as Mr Gay will no doubt advise you."
Abbas Zaidi, the PCB's director operations, told Cricinfo: "We have just been told that Inzamam and the Pakistan team have been acquitted of the ball tampering charges. This is excellent news for us as it vindicates our stance all along that we weren't guilty of ball tampering."
Inzamam has 24 hours to decide whether he wants to appeal. If he does not, the ban will rule him out of Pakistan's opening matches in the Champions Trophy in India.
__________________________________________
If there are are no changes to the above information, Pakistan i think will have a sigh of relief. They got screwed but will be relieved as things could have been worse.
Yep, I think you sum it up very accurately. Inzi and the team were treated unfairly by the umpires, and they reacted by staying in the dressing room. But as a team, they should and must abide by the views taken by the two umpires on the field, who have sole control. Otherwise the game becomes a joke and anarchy would be the result. But by dishing out the most lenient sentence possible - and clearing Pakistan of any accusation of cheating - this seems to be rather a slap in the face for Darrell Hair doesn't it? As the senior field umpire, he got it wrong and overreacted. But the Game has got to defend him because he was the man in charge - hence the penalty. It's just sad that the side of right (Pakistan who were reacting against an unfair charge of cheating) have to be punished. A similar thing happended when Mike Gatting was captaining England against Pakistan some years ago. The wider issues are more far-reaching than this single case, because we need to know what to do when the umpires get it wrong.
Posts: 801 | Location: Paris | Registered: 04-28-03
I agree. ICC was really in the middle of a chaotic situation. Situation such as Mike Gatting had occured before, but in those cases (like the case of Mike Gatting and unlike the current case) the umpires were ready to accept the apology and continue with the game. As per Imran Khan, Pakistan should have protested on the field rather than outside the field. You are right about Hair. Lets see what happens now, because Pakistan and now India have told ICC they dont want him to umpire in the ICC tournament.
Latest news : umpire Hair has been banned from umpiring international matches. Countries supporting the ban included Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South africa, Zimbawae and West Indies. Countries against the ban were England, Australia and New Zealand.
(talk about the racial divide there...)
on the side note, the only other unresolved issue :
England Cricket Board has demanded one million dollars (i believe) from Pakistan cricket Board as compensation for withdrawing from the match. PCB has refused.
England Cricket Board has demanded one million dollars (i believe) from Pakistan cricket Board as compensation for withdrawing from the match. PCB has refused.
Quite right
Posts: 13325 | Location: 6 miles west of Wigan UK | Registered: 06-05-02
AnswerPool.com 
